Cited by 176Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

Towards realtime multimodal fusion for image-guided interventions using self-similarities

Open access
Heinrich, Mattias Paul, Jenkinson, Mark, Papież, Bartlomiej W., Brady, Sir Michael, Schnabel, Julia A.·2013·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

Image-guided interventions often rely on deformable multimodal registration to align pre-treatment and intra-operative scans. There are a number of requirements for automated image registration for this task, such as a robust similarity metric for scans of different modalities with different noise distributions and contrast, an efficient optimisation of the cost function to enable fast registration for this time-sensitive application, and an insensitive choice of registration parameters to avoid delays in practical clinical use. In this work, we build upon the concept of structural image representation for multi-modal similarity. Discriminative descriptors are densely extracted for the multi-modal scans based on the "self-similarity context". An efficient quantised representation is derived that enables very fast computation of point-wise distances between descriptors. A symmetric multi-scale discrete optimisation with diffusion reguIarisation is used to find smooth transformations. The method is evaluated for the registration of 3D ultrasound and MRI brain scans for neurosurgery and demonstrates a significantly reduced registration error (on average 2.1 mm) compared to commonly used similarity metrics and computation times of less than 30 seconds per 3D registration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-642-40811-3_24

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Traditional registration algorithms are constructed as continuous optimization problems or discrete optimization problems.

    “The traditional registration algorithms are constructed as continuous optimization problems (15, 16) or discrete optimization problems (17).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, pp. 913-922. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
  2. Heinrich, M.P., Jenkinson, M., Bhushan, M., Matin, T., Gleeson, F.V., Brady, S.M., Schnabel, J.A.: MIND: Modality independent neighbourhood descriptor for multi-modal deformable registration. Med. Imag. Anal. 16(7), 1423-1435 (2012)
  3. Heinrich, M.P., Jenkinson, M., Brady, S.M., Schnabel, J.A.: Globally optimal de- formable registration on a minimum spanning tree using dense displacement sam- pling. In: Ayache, N., Delingette, H., Golland, P., Mori, K. (eds.) MICCAI 2012, Part III. LNCS, vol. 7512, pp. 115-122. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
  4. Heinrich, M., Jenkinson, M., Brady, M., Schnabel, J.: MRF-based deformable reg- istration and ventilation estimation of lung CT. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. (2013)
  5. Forsyth, D., Torr, P., Zisserman, A. (eds.) ECCV 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5302, pp. 30-43. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
  6. Klein, S., Staring, M., Pluim, J.: Evaluation of optimization methods for nonrigid medical image registration using mutual information and B-Splines. IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 16(12), 2879-2890 (2007)
  7. Lu, C., Chelikani, S., Papademetris, X., Knisely, J.P., Milosevic, M.F., Chen, Z., Jaffray, D.A., Staib, L.H., Duncan, J.S.: An integrated approach to segmentation and nonrigid registration for application in image-guided pelvic radiotherapy. Med. Imag. Anal. 15(5), 772-785 (2011)
  8. Maurer, C.R., Hill, D.L.G., Martin, A.J., Liu, H., McCue, M., Rueckert, D., Lloret, D., Hall, W.A., Maxwell, R.E., Hawkes, D.J., Truwit, C.L.: Investigation of intraop- erative brain deformation using a 1.5 Tesla interventional MR system: Preliminary results. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17(5), 817-825 (1998)
  9. Mercier, L., Del Maestro, R., Petrecca, K., Araujo, D., Haegelen, C., Collins, D.: Online database of clinical MR and ultrasound images of brain tumors. Med. Phys. 39, 3253 (2012)
  10. Pluim, J., Maintz, J., Viergever, M.: Image registration by maximization of com- bined mutual information and gradient information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 19(8), 809-814 (2000)
  11. Rivaz, H., Collins, D.L.: Self-similarity weighted mutual information: A new non- rigid image registration metric. In: Ayache, N., Delingette, H., Golland, P., Mori, K. (eds.) MICCAI 2012, Part III. LNCS, vol. 7512, pp. 91-98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
  12. Shechtman, E., Irani, M.: Matching local self-similarities across images and videos. In: CVPR 2007, pp. 1-8. IEEE (2007)
  13. Staring, M., van der Heide, U., Klein, S., Viergever, M., Pluim, J.: Registra- tion of cervical MRI using multifeature mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 28(9), 1412-1421 (2009)
  14. Viola, P., Wells III, W.: Alignment by maximization of mutual information. Int. J. Comput. Vision 24(2), 137-154 (1997)
  15. Wachinger, C., Navab, N.: Entropy and laplacian images: Structural representa- tions for multi-modal registration. Med. Imag. Anal. 16(1), 1-17 (2012)
  16. Wein, W., Brunke, S., Khamene, A., Callstrom, M.R., Navab, N.: Automatic CT- ultrasound registration for diagnostic imaging and image-guided intervention. Med. Imag. Anal. 12(5), 577 (2008)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heinrich, M. P., Jenkinson, M., Papież, B. W., Brady, S. M., & Schnabel, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2013
Volume
16
Issue
Pt 1
Pages
187-194
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W2166737644
Cited by
176
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.81
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Lecture notes in computer science
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H050892/1)
  • Oxford Cancer Imaging Centre
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
multimodal image registration, deformable image registration, self-similarity, image-guided neurosurgery, 3D ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, brain scans, similarity measures, real-time registration
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain Neoplasms, Computer Systems, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Subtraction Technique, Neurosurgical Procedures, Surgery, Computer-Assisted, Multimodal Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review